4.4 Article

Raman spectroscopy for forensic semen identification: Method validation vs. environmental interferences

期刊

VIBRATIONAL SPECTROSCOPY
卷 109, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.vibspec.2020.103065

关键词

Raman spectroscopy; Chemometrics; Semen identification; Forensics; Biological fluids; Environmental interferences

资金

  1. National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice [2017-DN-BX-0135]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Proper identification of body fluids at crime scenes is imperative to forensic investigations, as they yield crucial pieces of DNA evidence that lead to subsequent investigation resolution and criminal justice. Nevertheless, body fluid identification can prove a burdensome process, as several ubiquitous substances found at crime scenes often resemble the appearance of a specific body fluid. Therefore, it is extremely important to find a reliable method for body fluid discovery and differentiation among other potential environmental inferences (EIs). In this study, Raman spectroscopy was combined with advanced statistical analysis and used for semen identification. This method has already been proven to be a powerful tool for characterization of body fluid traces for forensic purposes. Twenty-seven EI substances that may (i) yield a false positive (FP) result on routine forensic tests for semen and/or (ii) resemble a semen stain at a crime scene were examined. Raman spectra of EI substances were compared to spectra of main body fluids: semen, blood, saliva, sweat, and vaginal fluid. The random forest algorithm was utilized for differentiating between body fluids and EIs commonly found for semen traces. Using the classification probability threshold of 70%, entire separation of classes was observed. None of the twentyseven EI substances was classified as any body fluid. This confirms a great potential of Raman spectroscopy for nondestructive and rapid identification of semen traces found at a crime scene.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据